Numerous prior art patents and patent applications attempt to deal with the problem of producing and authenticating individual ID cards which are difficult or impossible to alter or duplicate, and which create an electronic trail of individual transactions. However, this inventor has been unable to find (with one exception, noted below) any prior art system in which the point-of-presentation operator (gatekeeper) is given the necessary information and discretion to override what would otherwise be a strict go/no-go or pass-fail decision made by a central computer, with no opportunity for the exercise of operator judgment. For example:
Marcus et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,354,494 (Mar. 12, 2002) discloses a method for producing and authenticating an ID card. The card is scanned to produce a digital signal which is compressed, encrypted and encoded in a 2-D barcode, and also printed into another portion of the card. For validation, the card is scanned, decoded, decrypted, expanded and displayed. The data can be sent to a central computer, but the center is not necessary to the process. The comparison process does not produce a nuanced response for the gatekeeper's evaluation and judgment.
Zagami, U.S. Pat. No. 6,394,356 (May 28, 2002) discloses an access control system for monitoring cardholder ingress and egress. An access gate camera captures and sends a unique identifier (an image of a person and/or a document) to a central database together with time and place information. There is no provision for feedback of detected discrepancies to enable an operator to exercise informed judgment as to whether the card is valid or not in a questionable situation.
Ray et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,536,665 (Mar. 25, 2003) discloses a personal identification badge having areas of both graphic images and machine-readable data. The card is produced by first forming a digital image, then generating a random number from a seed value, then adding the random numbers to produce a modified digital image, and finally printing that image on the card. The badge is authenticated by scanning the card and correlating it with the stored digital image. There is no central database of stored identification data, and the correlation process cannot produce a nuanced response for the gatekeeper's evaluation and informed judgment as to the validity of the card.
Novozhenets, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,475,812 (Jan. 13, 2009) discloses a method of access control using “smart” card badges and readers. Each gatekeeper has access to a database containing identifiers, access privileges and card serial numbers. The gatekeeper's reader generates a credential identifier code and “site secret key”. The inventor's complicated multi-step process generates only an approved-disapproved or pass-fail result. Badge numbers identify individual holders, and an issue code identifies each reissue of the badge if lost or damaged to prevent re-use of an old badge. The inventor's purpose is to foil copying and forging of badges. The system provides no feedback to the gatekeeper to aid in judging an ambiguous situation.
Johanns, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,484,659 (Feb. 3, 2009) discloses a system for detecting unauthorized use of credit/debit cards. Personal information (photo, fingerprint, etc.) is encrypted and encoded on the holder's ID card itself. The gatekeeper reads the card, with or without the holder's fingerprint, whereupon a central computer compares the data with stored data and either approves or disapproves the transaction. The gatekeeper gets no other feedback, and can only compare the photo on the ID card with the presenter's actual appearance at the time of presentation.
Erikson, U.S. Pat. No. 7,669,758 (Mar. 2, 2010) discloses a system in which an input device records a presenter's ID card (such as a drivers' license) to generate “account application” for a new credit card or the like. There is no feedback of card discrepancies which would allow for exercise of the gatekeeper's judgment.
Register Jr., et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,762,456 (Jul. 27, 2010) discloses a biometric-based ID system that stores encrypted biometric information on the ID card itself, rather than in a central database. On presentation, a reader interrogates the presenter, and then compares the new information with the stored information in the card, and makes a pass-fail decision. The operator is given no opportunity to apply informed judgment.
Talweridi, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,850,077 (Dec. 14, 2010) discloses a document authentication apparatus and system in which a scanner “illuminates” certain security features in a document “substrate” (such as a check, credit/debit card, stock certificate or passport) which a sensor then detects, digitizes and records for later matching when item is presented to a gatekeeper for authentication. The system generates a pass-fail “match/no match” report without indicating where an anomaly was detected, and does not feed the source of the error back to the gatekeeper to allow the exercise of judgment.
Hobson, et al. U.S. Pat. No. 7,933,842 (Apr. 26, 2011) and US 2009/0157557 (pub. Jun. 18, 2009) discloses a system for authenticating transactions other than “card present” transactions in which the merchant (gatekeeper) physically sees and handles the presenter's ID card. The system provides no feedback of discrepancies enabling the exercise of judgment by the gatekeeper.
Wallerstorfer, U.S. Pat. No. 7,735,728 (Jun. 15, 2010) is an access control device for checking high-value limited-time identification cards such as ski lift passes and the like. It is an exception to all of the above in that a previously stored image data from a central computer is fed back to the gatekeeper to allow the exercise of the gatekeeper's judgment. A camera at the gatekeeper' station records a real-time image of each presenter rather than reading an image from the presenter's card. The station sends the image to a remote central monitoring station where another operator compares it to a previously recorded image of that user, taken when the pass was initially purchased. Although the stored image can be fed back to the gatekeeper to allow exercise of judgment, the system has no provision for detecting other anomalies or providing nuanced feedback.